User talk:71.3.234.41

Blocked

This IP has been blocked, as it appears to be in use by a banned user to evade his block. You may contest this block by following the instructions here. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.3.234.41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Someone will have to explain how one can be blocked from participation in arbitration of a controversy created by other editors. Is that really the policy? Also, there is no explanation as to why the un-named user (who allegedly is evading a ban) was banned and no links to the alleged ban itself. Such a swift block and such a lack of evidence that a block is even approrpriate. What is the basis for any of this? How is participating in discussions on talk pages tendentious editing, when the information discussed in the talk pages is all based on pointing out compliance and violations of wikipedia policies and on reliable sources? The article is not even being edited. How is this edit anything but an attempt to ensure that there is a quality article that is in accord with wikipedia policies?

Decline reason:

A block is just that - a total block of editing except one page - the user's own talk page (which is the only page that a blocked user can access, mainly to ask for unblock or sometimes to ask others to copy text to arbitration pages). Editing as an IP while blocked is pure and simply block evasion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.3.234.41 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Who is blocked? Where is the evidence? How is that tied to me? This IP was not blocked when I made the edits today that supposedly violate something. Please explain. The admninistrator has cited no connection to any block that has been violated.

Decline reason:

This is a request for further information, not a request for an unblock, so of course it is declined. However, before declining it, I spent a significant amount of time checking the relevant history, and I have confirmed that you are clearly a banned user. We are under no obligation to publicise the evidence, and sometimes there are very good reasons for not doing so, such as denying the ban-evading person information which would help them to hide the nature of their activity in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is there an AN/I?DMSBel (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is one editor, the initial block was for opening a few new talk page sections in a row. It was a minor annoyance to a few editors. It was either 24 or 48 hours. The editor did not realise a subsequent block applied to a talk page too. The block was not as wide as a total block as far as I recall. There seems to be some confusion here about blocks/bans. What a block is, what a ban is, what each covers, whether there is a ban or a block on the IP? It strikes me as understandable that the IP would not be sure what he can edit and that has more to do with poorly enacted sanctions in the first place lacking sufficient explanation. The source of the problem (as far leaving things open to misunderstanding is concerned) therefore seems to be administrative in origin. Frankly, although there was minor breach in talk page etiquette, things have become blown way out of proportion in terms of sanctions. I would ask the IP to be patient till the matter is resolved, and not edit outside scope of the block once that is made clearer, and for its duration. In my experience with this IP they have been civil and responsive to polite appeals on those occasions when they breached etiquette. It might be circumspect in this instance to tidy the matter up and let the IP return to the discussion, with the proviso that they also be mindful of etiquette. Also that they would let editors know in the future if they edit on a different IP. The amount of disruption caused by this editor was really quite minimal when compared to other past incidents on wikipedia. DMSBel (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

When will you understand that an uninvolved administrator has forbidden you to edit Talk:Abortion? Disagree with it if you want, but the ban will be enforced until it is overturned. NW (Talk) 14:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• The block has been restored, as you have continued with the same abuse as before. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Late term abortion and the lies in the wikipedia abortion article

The website of self-described "late-term" abortion provider James Pendergraft (celebrated by NOW as an abortion-provider hero) is very interesting. He has set up shop in Washington D.C. and describes his practice below. Notice that contrary to his rhetoric (first excerpt below) he highlights the tragedy of the high number of teenagers who have late term abortions and notes that most of those abortions are preformed as birth control, not because of fetal anomaly or serious health risk to the mother (third excerpt below). One of the most provocative procedures in Pendergraft's Washington D.C. practice is performing feticide via Fetal Intracardiac Injection with the intent that once the fetus is dead, the woman could go to some other ob/gyn (any one will do) who will then have to assist her in completing the abortion by removing the dead fetus (killed by Pendergraft) from the womb, and the woman would not need to divulge that the fetus was deliberately killed. This allows Pendergraft to do the easy part, leaving the hard part to some other unknown doctor. Here are the excerpts from his website:

• "LateTermAbortion.net is a medical practice that specializes in performing intra-cardiac injections of second and third trimester pregnancies (greater than 24 weeks) where fetal anomalies are found to be incompatible with life or to protect the health of the mother. The majority of these patients have already been seen several times by their own personal physicians and found to have an abnormality of the fetus through genetic studies (FISH, CVS, or amniocentesis) or a maternal complication that can be a serious threat to their life or health. After the intra-cardiac injection is performed and the patient is found to have no potential problems, she has the choice of being sent back to her personal physician if the hospital in which the physician is affiliated has no rules or regulations about refusing to accept or deliver patients where a fetal death in-utero (fetal death in the mother's uterus) has occurred. This procedure has been performed over 3000 times without a single complication at Orlando Women's Center on patients 22 to 24 weeks pregnant. There are very few, but recognized complications that can occur; however, they are extremely rare when appropriate precautions and sterility are maintained." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors offer third-trimester abortions?}

• "Fetal Intra-cardiac Injection: The patient is taken to the procedure room where she is placed on an exam table. If patient elects to have a mild IV sedative it is given at this point. The patient's abdomen is cleansed with an anti-septic solution. A sonogram sector scan is placed on the patient's abdomen and the fetal abdominal cavity is isolated. A spinal needle is guided slowly into the fetal heart where a feticide agent or 50cc's of air is injected via a syringe to stop the fetal heart beat. The procedure usually takes 2 to 4 minutes to perform. The patient is then observed for several minutes in the procedure room." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors perform feticide (literally "killing of the fetus") during abortion?}

• "Teenagers have late term abortions for various reasons. The most common are fear of what family members may say, do or think of them; not aware that they are pregnant; denial that they are pregnant; rape victims of incest; or multiple other reasons that cause delay in it coming to the surface that the teenager is pregnant. Women who seek and have late term abortions often come from disadvantaged situations. Teenagers younger than 15, particularly of minority status, have a disproportionate number of late term abortions. Menstrual irregularity is a very important risk factor as women with irregular menses often discover late in term that they are pregnant. Other risk factors for late term abortions besides young age are low educational attainment, history of a sexually transmitted disease, unable to decide whether or not termination of pregnancy is the proper thing to do. There are many women that do not realize that the option for a late term abortion is available, they may not initially have the finances and may need weeks or even months to raise money to pay for the abortion or lack the transportation to get to a late term abortion provider. On top of that, physicians who offer late term abortion procedures are scarce." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors often perform late-term abortions when there is no fetal anomaly and no serious health threat to the mother?}

• "Is it legal to have a late term and or third trimester therapeutic termination of pregnancy? It is absolutely legal to have a late term and third trimester therapeutic abortion performed in certain States in an outpatient setting. The facility and place where the intra-cardiac injection will be carried out is one where the procedure is absolutely legal to perform. Late term abortion is defined by most as a termination procedure that occurs after 20 weeks of pregnancy. There are some that define late term abortion as early as 16 weeks pregnant. Third trimester of pregnancy is defined as after 24 to 28 weeks depending on the State or the Medical Professional Group. From a legal standpoint, each state defines its own regulation. The individual states also have laws that determine restrictions on how far an abortion can be performed and the criteria on where it must be carried out. There are some that will not allow abortions to be carried out except in a hospital after 12 weeks pregnant, and other states where there is no hospital requirement and no restriction on the number of weeks an abortion can be performed. There are those that declare the stopping of a fetal heart beat as the abortion, and others that indicate abortion is not defined until complete removal of the fetal and placental tissue. Once the fetal heart beat has stopped, the process of removing the fetus from the mother's womb is no longer defined as an abortion. This is the reason hospitals and other medical facilities cannot maintain the political, moral, ethical or religious controversy that comes with the abortion process; particularly when there is a threat to the mother's life or health or the fetus has abnormalities that are not compatible with life. In some states, abortions are permissible any time during a pregnancy to protect the woman's life or health, or when the fetus is affected by a genetic abnormality or deformity that is incompatible with life." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that in the USA doctors offer third-trimester abortions?}

• "Contrary to popular belief, the decision to end the life of a fetus even when severely abnormal and no chance of survival is very difficult." Link. _{What else is needed to convince editors that abortion doctors frankly counsel patients that an abortion ends the life of a fetus?}

71.3.234.41 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)